Lee v. Cent., (No. 185.)
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | GILBERT |
| Citation | 94 S.E. 558,147 Ga. 428 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 185.) |
| Parties | LEE . v. CENTRAL, OF GEORGIA RT. CO. et al. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. et al. v. LEE. |
94 S.E. 558
(147 Ga. 428)
LEE .
v.
CENTRAL, OF GEORGIA RT. CO. et al.
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. et al.
v.
LEE.
(No. 185.)
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Nov. 17, 1917.
Upon argument of counsel on motion for new trial after verdict in an action of tort, the judge of the city court of Savannah declared unconstitutional a provision of the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 123, § 5), amending the act creating that court; no question of the constitutionality of this provision having otherwise been raised. Held, that the Court of Appeals of this state has jurisdiction of a writ of error from the judgment granting a new trial.
[94 S.E. 559]Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.
Action by B. C. Lee against the Central of Georgia Railway Company and others. To the granting of a second new trial, there were exceptions and a cross-bill of exceptions, and the Court of Appeals certified two questions. First question answered in the affirmative, and second question answered in the negative.
The Court of Appeals certified the following questions:
"(1) In a case tried in the city court of Savannah a second new trial was granted the same party upon the sole ground that the evidence strongly preponderated in his favor, and in the order granting the new trial the judge of that court declared unconstitutional so much of the act approved August 13, 1915, relating to the city court of Savannah (Acts 1915, p. 123, § 5), as provides: 'No second new trial shall be granted in any case except for errors of law, or where there is no evidence to support the verdict' This ruling was made upon oral argument only of counsel for the movant, there being no pleadings in which the constitutionality of act in question was attacked. The losing party excepts to the grant of the second new trial. Conceding that the evidence supports the verdict and that no error of law appears, has the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to hear and determine this case, or does it 'involve the construction of the Constitution of the state, ' or is it a case 'in which the constitutionality of any law of the state of Georgia * * * is drawn in.question, ' in contemplation of the amendment to the_ Constitution, ratified November 7. 1916, relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
"(2) May an employ^ of a railway company engaged in interstate commerce maintain a joint action against the company and its engineer, under the federal Employers' Liabilitv Act of 1908 (TJ. S. Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665), where concurring negligence of the interstate carrier and its engineer in the course of interstate commerce is alleged as the cause of the injury to the plaintiff, and where also a violation of the Safety Appliance Act of Congress (section 8605 et seq.) is charged against the carrier?"
Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, of Savannah, for plaintiff.
Lawton &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Allen, Nos. 34625
...it. Our own Supreme Court has held that the F.E.L. Act does not preclude action against a fellow employee. Lee v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, which was affirmed in Lee v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482. The mere fact tha......
-
Gazaway v. Nicholson, No. 13177.
...To the same effect, see Hay v. Collins, 118 Ga. 243, 44 S.E. 1002, decided by five justices, and Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, by four justices, but in which latter case the statement may have been obiter. The decision in Cox v. Strickland, ......
-
United States Fid. & v. Watts, (No. 16849.)
...law as passed by the General Assembly of this state must be presumed to be constitutional." In Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428 (1), 94 S. E. 558, 13 A. L. It. 156, the Supreme Court ruled as follows: "In his judgment granting a second new trial, after verdict in an action......
-
Gazaway v. Nicholson, No. 27799.
...Strickland, 120 Ga. 104, 47 S.E. 912, 1 Ann.Cas. 870; Glore v. Akin, 131 Ga. 481, 62 S.E. 580, and Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, in which it was ruled that the provision of law contained in Code, § 105-2011 that "Where several trespassers ar......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Allen, Nos. 34625
...it. Our own Supreme Court has held that the F.E.L. Act does not preclude action against a fellow employee. Lee v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, which was affirmed in Lee v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482. The mere fact tha......
-
Gazaway v. Nicholson, No. 13177.
...To the same effect, see Hay v. Collins, 118 Ga. 243, 44 S.E. 1002, decided by five justices, and Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, by four justices, but in which latter case the statement may have been obiter. The decision in Cox v. Strickland, ......
-
United States Fid. & v. Watts, (No. 16849.)
...law as passed by the General Assembly of this state must be presumed to be constitutional." In Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428 (1), 94 S. E. 558, 13 A. L. It. 156, the Supreme Court ruled as follows: "In his judgment granting a second new trial, after verdict in an action......
-
Gazaway v. Nicholson, No. 27799.
...Strickland, 120 Ga. 104, 47 S.E. 912, 1 Ann.Cas. 870; Glore v. Akin, 131 Ga. 481, 62 S.E. 580, and Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 147 Ga. 428, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156, in which it was ruled that the provision of law contained in Code, § 105-2011 that "Where several trespassers ar......